SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 10(38). Further, ld.AO had referred some order of SEBI having no direct reference of the assessee. During the course of assessment proceeding, opportunity for cross examination of the witnesses of the department i.e. the above named two persons whose statements were solely relied upon to conclude that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries, was demanded but the same

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

section 10(38). Further, ld.AO had referred some order of SEBI having no direct reference of the assessee. During eh course of assessment proceeding, opportunity for cross examination of the witnesses of the department i.e. the above named two SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR persons whose statements were solely relied upon to conclude that the assessee

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 153A & 153C of the Act. Reliance in support was\nplaced upon judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nSaksham Commodities Ltd. (Supra) & Dev Technofab Ltd. (Supra) &\nHon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of DCIT v. Sunil Kumar\nSharma (Supra). All the aforesaid judgments have been affirmed by the\nHon'ble Supreme Court

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the other hand, in the case of purchasers i.e. Sh. Vivek Gupta and Sh. Ashish Gupta, assessments were completed u/s 147 / 143(3) of the Act and addition on account of capital gain of Rs. 6,34,62,356/- was made on substantive basis. 9. Against the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the other hand, in the case of purchasers i.e. Sh. Vivek Gupta and Sh. Ashish Gupta, assessments were completed u/s 147 / 143(3) of the Act and addition on account of capital gain of Rs. 6,34,62,356/- was made on substantive basis. 9. Against the order

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

section 54B of the Act on 25.08.2016, i.e. after the due date of filing the return and money was not deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme (CGAS). 6. We have gone through the order of the AO, Order of the Ld. CIT (A) and various submissions of the assessee and observed that the figures of sales, purchase, and cost

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains' but no addition was made in this regard, as no gains accrued to the appellant.\nHowever, learned AO proceeded to make addition on \"investment amount' under section 69A\nwhich is uncalled for.\n\nGround of Appeal No. 3\n\nThat the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law in not complying with principles of natural justice.\nFurther

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 153C thereafter is also barred by limitation and thus, being a nullity, deserves to be quashed. 2. The Id. CITA erred in not deciding that the impugned assessment order passed us 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Act dated 30.03.2023 for A.Y. 2014 15 is barred by limitation us 153B r.w.s 153C of the Act. Considering that the date

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gain from sale of flat—Assessee has reflected that same in its capital account—Further in response to letter issued by AO during assessment proceedings, assessee submitted his reply explaining reason for increase in capital—However, Pr. CIT exercising jurisdiction under section 263, directed AO to make fresh assessment on issues which were not subject matter of limited scrutiny—Since

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

capital gains earned on\nsaid sale but assessee had purchased property and not sold property,\nsince AO missed most crucial part of transaction that it was a purchase\nand not a sale transaction and impugned order under section 148A(b) did\nnot align with notice issued under section 148A(b), impugned order and\nconsequential notice were to be set aside

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

capital gain.\n10. We noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However, the request

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

capital gain.\n\n10. We noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

capital gains tax, did not disclose the profits arising on its sale. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS which was finalized u/s 143(3) of the IT Act. 1961 determining total income Rs. 1,14,75,790/- on 05.12.2016 An addition of Rs 1,14,75,791/-was made on account of LTCG on sale of the impugned

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

capital gain.\n10. We noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However, the request

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

capital gain.\n10.\nWe noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However, the request

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gain.\n10. We noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However, the request

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gain.\n\n10. We noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory